The ballistics of German navel rifles would dictate that the Hood was struck from a high angle if the damage was done by a 15 inch shell. If the end was caused by smaller shells, then the angle could have been less, but still a plunging hit. The design of the Hood offered little protection from 8 and 15 inch shells, and with the equipment the Germans had, an early hit was almost a given. There are many ideas about how the ship was killed; one even lays the blame on the reverse slope of the inner armor. But based on the reports from German survivors, it would appear that two 15 inch shells penetrated into the engineering spaces where the bLast compromised the thin bulkhead separating the rear main armament magazine from the engineering area.
The reason for this being the most likely case is the rapid sinking of the ship. A bLast from this type of hit would have vented from the rear of the ship forward, through the already damaged bulkhead, compromising the interior water tight compartments and lifting the lightly built deck above the engineering spaces. The hull, which was known to be under excessive stress in this area, would have been unable to remain intact with out the bracing of the deck structure.
The point here is that the Hood was not able to stand against ships of its own class, and was hard pressed against lesser ships. This should have been known by the Admiralty. The Hood should have been under orders to shadow and refuse engagement. To allow it to open a long range gun fight with a ship in the class of Bismarck was criminal. The fire control system on Hood was dismal by the standards of the day, and without armor to protect it while the layers probed for their targets, the outcome was an engineering given. And while the silver screen has given the impression that the situation was critical, this was not really the case. So long as the location of the Bismarck was known, the problem was manageable. IMHO, the reason for the Battle of the Denmark Strait was political, not strategic.
The Hood would have been more suited to hunting commerce raiders in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, where its vulnerabilities would have been less of a problem. Its speed would have offered more protection against the German raiders. But there were two reasons this was not feasible. The first is that the ship had become the unofficial champion of the fleet. This was because of it speed, gun power, and the fact that it was a damn good looking ship. This was something that the popular press made good use of. This also all but dictated that the ship would be part of the home fleet. The second reason was a result of its construction. Laid down during WW I, the ship was redesigned while under construction, an error often made during war time. And it also had many state-of-the-art systems, which were also untested and not quite mature in their design. The break downs and structural problems that resulted from this required the ship to be under repair more often than not. In fact, the ship was under repair at the time it sailed in pursuit of the Bismarck! The need for frequent yard work would also have required that the ship remain close to the yards that could keep her sea worthy.
Here are a couple of links that provide some of the specs and basic conclusions that are plausible in the sinking.
http://www.warships1.com/BRbc15_Hood_loss.htm http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm
One point that should be made here is that the big gun ship was probably obsolete at the time the Hood was laid down. During WW II, most capital ship engagements resulted in both side retiring after sustaining much damage, echoing the results of Jutland. Had the Allies spent a few dollars on torpedoes and developed an equal of the 21” Long lance, the situation would not have been so critical. But only the Japanese had the foresight to develop a torpedo that could be launched from outside the range of 15” guns.
As to the quality of British carrier aircraft at the start of the war, I am speechless. “Were they stupid?” is all that comes to mind. The planes of the U S Navy, while a generation newer, were not a lot better. But at least the U S was developing better designs, which would have been with the fleet had America entered the war in late 42 early 43 as was the plan. The Japanese planes were not a lot better, contrary to popular belief. But their pilots and navigators were very well trained. And this made a difference in the early going. But later, they paid for the shortcomings of the aircraft with their lives.
If one takes a look at Navel combat from Jutland to the end of WW II, there is one repeating item that sticks out. Quite often the need to limit damage to the capital ships has prevented the victor from gaining a substantial victory. If the weapon itself is not expendable, then its value is greatly limited. There are a few cases were luck played a role, and two cases where loss of tactical control allows for victories. But in most battles, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory due to the need to preserve the capitol ships.
In all fairness, I should mention that both America and Japan managed to produce Battleships that were able to stand against almost anything that could be thrown against them. But the combined war records of these ships do not justify the fuel cost to operate them, let alone the production cost. Japan was not willing to risk theirs until the end was near, and America’s super battleships did most of their fighting as artillery and AA platforms. What would have been the Last big gun fight of the war turned out to be a daring gambit by the Japanese. And they could have won a small victory if they had been willing to risk their capital ships and see the fight through to the end.
Now to address the game we all love to play, I think that the fighter needs a bigger punch. I also think that PDC need to be limited in their ability to engage large numbers of targets. The way the game is now, it is very hard to saturate the PDC abilities of a fleet. Fighters should be able to follow the Soviet tactic of launching swarms of stand off weapons that would penetrate defenses due to shear weight of numbers. Perhaps there should be a larger fighter/bomber that could carry these weapons from planets only. I also think that a fleet without fighters should be vulnerable to fighters with stand off weapons. If any of you have played Fleet Command, then you will know the difficulty of defending against mass missile attacks. This is an imbalance in SE4.
[ June 21, 2003, 20:44: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*
Hybrid Mode
